List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale recently dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal of the respondent (Hanuman).  

• The Court affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, which had set aside the respondent’s conviction and life sentence imposed by the Trial Court and held that Mere recovery of weapon with victim’s blood group not sufficient for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 103 of BNS). 
• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman (2025) 

What is the Background of State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman (2025) Case? 

• The incident pertains to the murder of one Chotu Lal, which occurred on the intervening night of 1 and 2 March, 2007.  
• The FIR was lodged against unknown persons. The respondent was later implicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence and suspicion. The prosecution's case relied on: 
  • The alleged motive that the accused had an evil eye on the deceased's wife; 
  • Recovery of a blood-stained weapon from the accused; 
  • FSL report confirming the blood group on the weapon as B+ve, the same as the deceased’s. 
  • The Trial Court convicted the respondent on 10th December 2008 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹100. 
  • In appeal, the Rajasthan High Court, vide judgment dated 15th May 2015, acquitted the respondent holding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances required in a case based on circumstantial evidence. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court found no merit in the State’s appeal. While the State contended that the High Court overlooked the FSL report, the Supreme Court observed: 
• “Even if the FSL report is taken into account, the only finding is that the weapon bore blood of the same group as the deceased (B+ve). That alone is not sufficient to convict.” 
• The Court relied upon its previous decision in Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481, where it was held that: 
  • “Mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group as that of the victim is not enough to sustain a conviction for murder.” 
• Further, the Court noted: 
  • The motive was vague and not conclusively established. 
  • The chain of circumstances was incomplete, and the prosecution failed to lead to clinching evidence that would rule out the respondent’s innocence. 
• The Bench reaffirmed that interference with acquittal is permissible only when the only possible view based on evidence is the guilt of the accused. In this case, the view taken by the High Court—i.e., the innocence of the accused—was held to be a plausible and the only possible view. 
• This ruling underscores that forensic evidence, such as FSL reports confirming matching blood groups, must be corroborated with other substantive evidence. 
• Circumstantial evidence must point conclusively to guilt, and absence of such clinching evidence entitles the accused to acquittal.  
• The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the primacy of due process and benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. 

What is the Law on Circumstantial Evidence? 

About:  

• Circumstantial evidence refers to indirect evidence that implies the commission of a crime but does not directly prove it.  
• The legal standard is that “All links in the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and rule out any hypothesis of innocence.” 

Five Golden Principles 

• It is well-settled in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), where the Court laid down the five golden principles, also known as the "Panchsheel," for reliance on circumstantial evidence: 
  • Circumstances must be fully established. 
  • The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 
  • The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature. 
  • They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 
  • There must be a complete chain of evidence that points to the guilt of the accused. 

Difference Between Direct & Circumstantial Evidence: 

Landmark Judgements: 

• Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case observed the principles laid down in various judgments regarding motive as a circumstance for conviction.  
  • The Court observed that in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995) it was held that if motive is proved that would provide a link in the chain of circumstances of evidence, but the absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.  
    • At the same time in Babu v. State of Kerela (2010), the Court held that motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. 
• Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021): 
  • The Supreme Court reinforced that, in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required by Section 106 of IEA could serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. 
• Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023): 
  • The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld murder convictions based heavily on circumstantial evidence tied to an extramarital affair, significance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The Court observed that in such cases, the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for innocence.   
• Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2023): 
  • In this case it was held that to convict the husband and his relatives there must be a full-fledged trial that is to be conducted, and the court cannot take help of the provisions of section 106 IEA for the same. 

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that when an FIR does not allege that the offence was committed because of the victim’s caste, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against anticipatory bail does not apply. 

• This ruling was delivered by Justice Virender Singh in the matter of Sahil Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another. 

What was the Background of Sahil Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another (2025) Case? 

Initial Complaint and FIR Registration: 

• On 05th April 2025, complainant (aged about 20 years) appeared before Women Police Station, Chamba. 
• She disclosed that she is a resident of village 'X' and had developed a relationship with applicant Sahil Sharma. 
• FIR No.14 of 2025 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 
• Complainant alleged that Sahil Sharma developed physical relations with her on pretext of marriage 

Timeline of Alleged Incidents: 

• December 2021: First alleged incident at 'Y' Hotel near bus stand 'Z' when complainant was 17 years old. 
• March 2024: Second alleged incident at the same hotel with promise of marriage. 
• 21-27 March 2025: Stayed together for 7 days at Hotel 'A' Chandigarh with continued promises of marriage. 
• August 2023 onwards: Planning for marriage on 3rd April 2025. 
• 01.4.2025: Final discussion about marriage with victim's family. 
• 02.4.2025: Applicant's mobile phone switched off, became unreachable. 

Court Journey and Proceedings 

Application Filing: 

• Applicant Sahil Sharma filed anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Claimed entire case is false and fabricated. 
• Stated, he is ordinarily a resident of Mumbai, working in a private company. 
• Claimed complainant disclosed her age as 22 years when they met in 2023. 
• The alleged December 2021 incident was concocted to bring a case under the POCSO Act. 

Investigation Progress: 

• Complainant medico-legally examined at Hospital 'X'. 
• Complainant's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS before Judicial Magistrate. 
• Complainant identified room No.201 of Hotel 'Y', bed sheet and pillow cover seized. 
• The victim identified Hotel 'Z' at Chandigarh in mother's custody. 

Age Discrepancy Issues: 

• Complainant's DOB mentioned as 7th July 2005 in the complaint. 
• Aadhar Card submitted at Chandigarh hotel showed DOB as 6th June 2005. 
• Birth certificate and matriculation certificate showed DOB as 7th July 2005. 
• Applicant disclosed that victim emailed Aadhar Card on 6th July 2024 showing birth year as 2001. 

Addition of SC&ST Act Provisions: 

• After obtaining caste certificates, Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act added. 
• Victim found to be from the Scheduled Caste community, applicant from general category. 
• Investigation transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police. 
• Victim's supplementary statement recorded alleging caste-based exploitation. 

Victim's Additional Allegations: 

• Applicant habitually consumed alcohol and used derogatory casteist remarks like 'Chamar' and 'Churi'. 
• The applicant suggested court marriage in Dalhousie to keep it confidential from family. 
• Promised to disclose marriage to family after 5-6 months. 
• Alleged applicant fabricated Aadhar Card changing birth year from 2005 to 2001. 
• Claimed applicant's sister offered monetary compensation to withdraw complaint.

What were the Court’s Observations?

On SC&ST Act Applicability: 

• FIR contained no reference to victim's caste or caste-based exploitation. 
• SC&ST Act provisions added only on 7th May 2025 based on caste certificates. 
• Supplementary statement about caste-based rape recorded on 6th May 2025. 
• The court held that statement under Section 180 BNSS cannot be treated as part of FIR. 

Legal Precedents Applied:  

• Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024): If complaint doesn't make prima facie case for SC&ST Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. 
• Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018): No absolute bar on anticipatory bail if no prima facie case under Atrocities Act. 
• Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020): Bar under Section 18 doesn't apply if complaint doesn't make prima facie case. 
• Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024): FIR prepared after deliberations cannot be treated as FIR. 

On Investigation Statements: 

• Statement under Section 161/180 cannot be used as substantive evidence 
• Such statements can only be used for contradiction purposes under Section 162 CrPC/181 BNSS. 
• Supplementary statement about caste cannot be treated as part of original FIR. 
• Court has inherent power under Section 482 BNSS when no prima facie case made out. 

Key Findings: 

• Original FIR made no reference to caste-based exploitation. 
• Multiple discrepancies in victim's date of birth across documents. 
• The case involves a romantic relationship with disputed consensual nature. 
• Detailed evidence evaluation should be avoided at bail stage to prevent prejudice. 
• Dismissal would amount to pre-trial punishment when presumption of innocence applies. 

Court's Decision: 

• Anticipatory bail granted with personal bond of ₹50,000 and one surety of like amount 
• Interim order dated 08th May 2025 made absolute. 
• Applicant directed to file regular bail application when charge sheet is filed. 

Bail Conditions Imposed: 

• Join investigation when called by Investigating Officer. 
• Not to leave India without court permission. 
• Not to influence witnesses or persons acquainted with case facts. 
• Regularly attend trial court hearings or seek exemption through proper application. 

Final Directions: 

• Observations limited to bail application disposal, not expression of opinion on merits. 
• State at liberty to move application if bail conditions violated. 
• Record to be returned to the concerned quarter.

What is Section 18 of the SC/ST Act?

About the SC/ST Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities' members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance. 

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act: 

• This Act states nothing in section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.